Karl Glazebrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK I will raise to the bait
>
> I think it's a bit unfair to say that PDL people have failed to 'bite',
> there was quite a bit of discussion on our list after your post. Also
> some concern about how much of perl6 is vapourware.
>
> I am game to take part in discussions.
>
> It has always been apparent to me that Numerical Python is better integrated
> than PDL. Some language changes in core python WERE made to accomodate it,
> also Python had less syntax clutter to get around.
>
> I definitely support embedding many of the key PDL ideas into the language
> - they key one is a much easier syntax for a multi-dim slice. We are currently
> driven to
>
> $a->slice("10:100,30:200");
>
> compared to IDL AND NumPy: a[10:100,30:200]
Perl doesn't have multi-dimensional arrays (yet, I hope), but it
*does* spell `:' as "..", even today. @x[7..9] is a 3-element list,
which I don't see as any different from @x[7:9]. Does the slice share
the elements of @a in your example?
> I'd propose simply building the a:b syntax into the core of Perl6. It's
> convenient and almost standard.
Put the dots sideways, and it's Perl.
Regarding multi-dimensional arrays, the PDL porters are undoubtable
champions; what is required?
[...]
--
Ariel Scolnicov |"GCAAGAATTGAACTGTAG" | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Compugen Ltd. |Tel: +972-2-6795059 (Jerusalem) \ We recycle all our Hz
72 Pinhas Rosen St. |Tel: +972-3-7658514 (Main office)`---------------------
Tel-Aviv 69512, ISRAEL |Fax: +972-3-7658555 http://3w.compugen.co.il/~ariels
